Writing Science, 24 Mar Artificial sweeteners may not be safe alternatives to sugar, according to an observational study suggesting a link between the consumption of some of these sweetening substances and an increased risk of cancer. This is the main conclusion of a work published in the journal Plos Medicine and its authors, while admitting the need for experimental studies, they say that their results do not support the use of artificial sweeteners as safe alternatives to sugar in food or drink. The research is led by scientists Charlotte Debras and Mathilde Touvier from the National Institute of Health and Medical Research and the Sorbonne University of Paris North, both in France. Millions of people consume them daily, but the safety of these additives has been and continues to be the subject of debate - there is some study that denies the link between their intake and cancer. To assess the potential carcinogenicity of artificial sweeteners, the researchers analyzed data from 102,865 French adults who participated in the NutriNet-Santé study, a journal statement explains. Specifically, the team collected artificial sweetener intake data from 24-hour dietary records. After collecting information on the diagnosis of cancer during follow-up, the researchers conducted statistical analyses to investigate the associations between artificial sweetener consumption and cancer risk. They were also adjusted to a number of variables such as age, sex, education, physical activity, smoking, body mass index, height, weight gain during follow-up, diabetes, and family history of cancer. Researchers found that those enrolled in the study who consumed higher amounts of artificial sweeteners, particularly aspartame and acesulfame K, had a higher risk of general cancer compared to non-consumers. Higher risks were observed for breast cancer and obesity-related cancers. “Our results do not support the use of artificial sweeteners as safe alternatives to sugar in foods or beverages and provide important and novel information to address controversies about their potential adverse health effects,” the authors note. Although these results need to be replicated in other cohorts on a large scale and the underlying mechanisms must be clarified through experimental studies, they provide important and novel information for the ongoing re-evaluation of sweeteners, food additives by the European Food Safety Authority and other agencies health care at the global level. Charlotte Debras adds that “the results of the NutriNet-Santé cohort suggest that artificial sweeteners found in many food and beverage brands around the world may be associated with an increased risk of cancer, in line with several experimental in vivo/in vitro studies.” The researchers caution, however, that the study has several important limitations. For example, dietary intake is self-declared. The observational nature of the study also means that there may be residual confusion and that reverse causation cannot be ruled out. More research will therefore be needed to confirm the results and clarify the underlying mechanisms. CHIEF ngg/icn